My wife’s cousin Jonathan, who’s a bright and talented sort, has an interesting post up on his blog riffing on a Zimbabwean proverb to the effect that “a coward has no scars.” Now, if you want a riff on the proverb itself, I’d suggest you look to his blog for that; as will be no surprise to anyone who’s followed this blog a while, my reaction to it was rather different. Given the news from Zimbabwe—if you were to write a novel about the Mugabe regime, you might call it Tyranny in the Time of Cholera, as that bloody autarch clearly would rather see his whole country die than let go of even one of the reins of power—my thoughts immediately went there.There are a lot of Zimbabweans who aren’t cowards, and they have the scars to prove it; and there were many, during the last presidential “election,” who were scarred badly enough for their opposition that they opted for what you might call a little tactical cowardice—they backed down long enough to live to fight another day. That even included Morgan Tsvangirai, the chief opposition leader, who bought himself a little time and a little breathing room by pulling out of the “runoff” before diving back in later. (So far, he’s holding steady and refusing to let Mugabe make a farce out of the power-sharing agreement; as a result, some folks are blaming him for the country’s woes, but I hope he keeps it up.) They’re proof, I guess, that sometimes the line between bravery and foolhardiness, and that which divides cowardice from prudence, can be awfully fine; and for that matter, that everyone has a limit, and everyone can be broken.There are a lot of Zimbabweans who are badly scarred, simply because they want to live free under a just government that exists to serve its people rather than to leech off them. I continue to pray that that day will come, and soon.
Monthly Archives: January 2009
Would that it were so simple . . .
Courtesy, of course, of icanhascheezburger.com.
Deliverance is in God alone
they shall mount up with wings like eagles;
—Isaiah 40:27-31 (ESV)
I think the hardest thing about the Christian life is trusting God. Maybe I’m overgeneralizing here, but at least for a lot of people, this seems to be true. Certainly if you look at the history of Israel’s relationship to God in the Old Testament, their failure to trust God was at the root of many if not all of their corporate sins—time and again, they thought they needed the help of other gods to achieve their best life then, or they preferred to trust in their own military and diplomatic maneuvers to defeat their enemies. When things didn’t go well for them, though, they were certainly quick enough to blame God for that, whether they’d been putting their trust in him to deal with their problems or not.Thus, for instance, in Isaiah 40—when the prophet has just announced the deliverance of God, bringing his people back from exile—the response we hear isn’t gratitude but a skeptical whine: “God isn’t helping us; he can’t see what’s happening to us, and he doesn’t care that we aren’t getting the justice we deserve.” You can’t blame the prophet for his disbelief and irritation as he asks, “Don’t you get it? Are you really that dense?” God has all power over all creation, because he made all of it, and he knows everything that happens; indeed, he rules through everything that happens. In his power, in his character, in all of who he is, God is so far above anything we human beings can imagine as to be completely incomparable, completely beyond our ability to describe; as such, he’s also completely beyond our ability, or the ability of our enemies, to baffle, thwart, or evade. He raises up the powers of the earth, and then he brings them to nothing, as he will. Yes, he intends to deliver his people, and yes, he has the ability to do so any time and in any way he chooses. What is needed is for his people—for them; for us—to trust him.We need to trust him, because only he can see the right timing, and because we simply lack the ability to do anywhere near as well, nevermind any better. Our own strength is limited; even the best of us wear out and falter. Even a guy like Michael Phelps can only keep going for so long before he drops from exhaustion. But God says that if we will trust him, wait for him, depend on him, rather than putting our trust in our own strength and our own plans, that he will give us the strength and the endurance we need to do what he calls us to do. We will be able to fly as eagles fly—not by working hard flapping their wings, but by stretching out their wings and letting the wind carry them; we will be able to keep going through the weary times, because when our strength runs out, he will renew us, if we wait on him.This is important for us to remember as a nation, as we enter a new year in very uncertain circumstances; as we consider Iran, and terrorists, and the global economic situation, we need to remember what Isaiah tells us: surely all these problems compared to God are like the bead of condensation that slides down your can of soda, or the bit of dust that settles on the scale when you’re weighing the produce. Yes, economic trends could make our lives much less comfortable than we’ve been used to, and yes, al’Qaeda could hurt our country badly; but though God may permit bad things to happen to us, they will only happen when he permits them, and he will continue to work through them just as he works through the good things we see in life. In all things, well and ill, God is in control and at work to accomplish his purposes.(Excerpted, edited, from “The Incomparable God”)
And you think Congress is obscene now . . .
You’ve probably seen the report that the porn industry wants a $5 billion bailout (I guess they’re getting hammered by free Internet competition just like the newspaper industry—well, maybe not just like, but it’s the same sort of problem); they’ve even offered to give Congress equity stakes. That’s all we need, Congress helping run the porn industry. We’d never be able to think of a government stimulus package the same way again.
The Incomparable God
(Isaiah 40; Colossians 1:15-20)
Isaiah is the most theological book of the Old Testament. In the breadth of the prophet’s teaching, the depths of his themes, and the subtle ways in which those themes are woven together throughout the book, it is unmatched in the Hebrew Scriptures; not for nothing has it been called the Romans of the Old Testament. The driving concern all through the book is the contrast between what Israel is called to be—namely, God’s servant among the nations, through whom he will draw all the nations to himself—and what Israel actually is—their idolatry, their injustice, their refusal to trust God, and their insistence on putting their trust instead in themselves and their military power (such as it was).
The first five chapters set out the broad themes of the book, and then in chapter 6 we have the story of God calling Isaiah as a prophet. Chapters 7-39 are the first main section of the book, showing us Isaiah’s prophetic ministry in Judah, which was the southern kingdom—when the northern ten tribes seceded from the kingdom of David and Solomon, they took the name “Israel” with them; the south became known as “Judah” after its dominant tribe. When Isaiah begins his ministry, during the reign of King Ahaz, the main threats to Judah are Israel and Syria. Isaiah goes to Ahaz and tells him, “This is what God says: Israel and Syria are plotting to invade you, but just trust me—they won’t do it, because I’m going to stop them. Ask me for a sign—anything—and I’ll give it to you to confirm this.” But Ahaz refuses, because he already has his own plan: he’s going to ally himself with the Assyrian empire and use them to take care of Syria and Israel.
In consequence, God, through the prophet Isaiah, responds with anger and frustration, telling Ahaz that because of his refusal to trust in God, Assyria is going to come down hard on Judah; the Assyrians won’t quite conquer Judah, but they’ll do everything but. Over the course of time, Assyrian power rises, and their threat to Judah rises—though Isaiah tells the people several times along the way that the real threat is the one coming along behind them, the Babylonians—culminating in the Assyrian invasion, which comes in chapter 36, as the Assyrian armies take all the cities of Judah except for the capital city of Jerusalem. This time, however, Hezekiah is king; unlike his father Ahaz, he puts his trust in God, and God delivers the nation. But then, in chapter 39, he makes a critical mistake: when envoys come from the king of Babylon—Babylon about whom Isaiah has been warning his people all these years—Hezekiah does everything he can to make an ally of them, putting his trust in them rather than in the God who has already delivered his nation once from the power of Assyria. He makes essentially the same mistake Ahaz made, and the word comes in response: Babylon will conquer Judah, and your people and treasures will be carried off into exile.
As we noted a few weeks ago, though, that could not be the last word; the story of the people of God could not end that way, or it would invalidate everything God had ever said about himself. Thus begins the second great section of the book, Isaiah 40-55, which answers the question, “What now?” God will bring his people back from exile, that has to be established—and it is, in the first 11 verses of this chapter, the immediate response to the word of judgment pronounced in chapter 39—but on what basis? What will God do with this people who refuse to be the servant people he called and created them to be? Will they respond to their exile by repenting and changing their ways, or will God’s work have to go forward some other way? Will he ultimately have to set his people aside?
The answers to those questions will be worked out over the course of chapters 40-55, which we’ll be studying over the next number of weeks; right from the beginning, though, even in the great word of comfort and hope that opens this section, we have hints that God’s people will not respond as they should. It’s my contention that we see two primary things happen in these chapters; the first is widely agreed on, while the second is not so much. First, in what are known as the “Servant Songs,” we see the focus shift from the nation as God’s servant to God raising up a particular servant, one human being, through whom he will accomplish his purpose—and these prophecies are fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Thus we’ll spend some time during this series in the gospels, and in other passages that point explicitly to Christ, as our passage from Colossians does this morning. Second, I believe we see in these chapters a shift away from Israel to the nations—since Israel would not take up the mission to the nations, the Servant will begin that mission himself; the salvation of Israel will have to come through the nations, instead of the other way around. This engages with Paul’s argument in Romans 9-11, in which he wrestles with this issue, and so we’ll spend some time reading there as well.
The argument begins here in chapter 40, though, with the announcement of deliverance; and that announcement is founded in the assertion that God, and only God, is capable of delivering his people. We see the first statement of that in verse 10: “See, the Sovereign LORD comes with power, and his arm rules for him”; and then in verse 12, Isaiah begins to argue this out in detail. The central question of this section comes in verse 18: “To whom will you compare God?” The answer is clear: nobody. Verse 12 asks, who can compare with God’s power in creation? The imagery here is remarkable—for all the vastness of the heavens, God measured them with a span, which is the distance from here [tip of thumb] to here [tip of spread pinky]. That’s how big the universe is compared to God. Verses 13 and 14 ask, who can compare with God’s wisdom and knowledge—who was even in a position to offer him advice? Clearly, no one.
What about the nations? The kings of Judah, as we’ve seen, spent much of their time focused on the threat from this nation or that nation, and hoping to use this other powerful nation over here as an ally to deal with the perceived threat; and if they could have, they no doubt would have been looking for nations which they could invade and conquer in turn. What about these powers? The kings of Judah didn’t trust God to deal with them, preferring their military efforts and diplomatic intrigues; were they justified? Are the nations too great for God to handle? No, says Isaiah, of course not. All their power and glory are nothing, just the speck of dust that settles on the scale—completely inconsequential. Not only is their power no rival to that of God, the very idea is utterly ludicrous, totally absurd. They’re not “worthless”—that’s not a good word choice by the NIV; it’s not as if God doesn’t value them, because he clearly does. The point is, rather, that as God measures power, they don’t even register.
Ah, but some might say, that’s comparing apples to dragons. The nations are certainly far greater and more powerful than Israel, so surely their gods must be greater and more powerful than Israel’s God, right? That would have seemed obvious to most people; but to Isaiah, it’s the most ridiculous idea yet. In verses 19-20, we get the first of several polemics against idols that we’ll see in this section—this one’s brief, but when Isaiah returns to this theme and these images later on, he’ll do so at greater length. Are the gods of the nations powerful? No, they’re nothing at all. People make them out of stuff. Sure, it’s valuable stuff—that “poor man” is a mistranslation, because in that part of the world, wood that wouldn’t rot was actually very expensive, and it required a skilled craftsman to shape it—but it’s just stuff, made by people, set up by people, protected by people. It can’t even stand up by itself—it has to be secured with chains or fastened down in some other way to keep it from falling over. And this is supposed to rival the God who made the whole universe (including that stuff that people bow down and worship) out of nothing, not even needing anyone to advise him? Not likely.
Just to make sure you got the point, Isaiah goes back over all of it. Creation, kings, nations—don’t you get it? he asks; are you really that dense? All these things are God’s creation, and he does with them as he will; even the sun, moon, and stars, which the peoples of the ancient world thought governed their lives, are his creation and his servants. In his power, in his character, in all of who he is, God is so far above anything we human beings can imagine as to be completely incomparable, completely beyond our ability to describe; as such, he’s also completely beyond our ability, or the ability of our enemies, to baffle, thwart, or evade. He raises up the powers of the earth, and then he brings them to nothing, as he will; no opposition to him will be allowed to endure.
From Israel’s perspective, though, what really mattered was their own circumstances, and when things weren’t going the way they wanted, they were inclined to distrust God; and so here we get the first appearance of their grumbling skepticism. “God isn’t helping us; he can’t see what’s happening to us, and he doesn’t care that we aren’t getting the justice we deserve.” To that, Isaiah says once again, “Don’t you get it?” God has all power over creation, and he knows everything that happens; and no, he’s not too tired to help his people, either, because he never gets tired. God intends to deliver his people, and he has the ability to do so any time and in any way he chooses. What is needed is for his people—for them; for us—to trust him.
Our own strength is limited; even the best of us wear out and falter. That second word translated “young men” means “chosen ones”—the elite, the hand-picked, like our own Olympic athletes. Even a guy like Michael Phelps can only keep going for so long before he drops from exhaustion. But God says that if we will trust him, wait for him, depend on him, rather than putting our trust in our own strength and our own plans, that he will give us the strength and the endurance we need to do what he calls us to do. We will be able to fly as eagles fly—not by working hard flapping their wings, but by stretching out their wings and letting the wind carry them; we will be able to keep going through the weary times, because when our strength runs out, he will renew us, if we wait on him.
This is important for us to remember as a nation, as we enter a new year in very uncertain circumstances; as we consider Iran, and terrorists, and the global economic situation, we need to remember what Isaiah tells us: surely all these problems compared to God are like the bead of condensation that slides down your can of soda, or the bit of dust that settles on the scale when you’re weighing the produce. Yes, economic trends could make our lives much less comfortable than we’ve been used to, and yes, al’Qaeda could hurt our country badly; but though God may permit bad things to happen to us, they will only happen when he permits them, and he will continue to work through them just as he works through the good things we see in life. In all things, well and ill, God is in control and at work to accomplish his purposes.
This is also important for us to remember as a church. We know we have some challenges; we know that given the size and age of our congregation, the giving level we’ve seen, and the size of our budget, our current situation is not sustainable. Change will come, one way or another, that’s inevitable—the only question is whether we will be proactive in creating change, or just let change happen to us (in which case it will almost certainly be bad). What we need to bear in mind is that we must not make the same mistake King Ahaz made, in choosing to put his trust in his own wits and schemes and plans—a mistake that came because he focused too much on the problems he could see, and lost sight of the fact that God is much bigger than all those problems. As the Session gathers next Sunday to begin to develop a vision and a plan for this body, as we bring our work to the congregation at the annual meeting next month, as we work over the course of this coming year to get everyone committed to going forward together in ministry in a new way, we need to remember whose wisdom we need to seek, and whose will we need to follow, and whose strength and whose power will make it all happen—namely, God. Our incomparable God who made all that is and who dwarfs every challenge we face has a part for us in his plan, and he desires to bless us as a part of that; we just need to follow.
This means that while our own efforts are important—God doesn’t call us to passivity—the most important thing we can do is pray. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, if you’re a part of this community of faith, your first responsibility before all others is to be in prayer for the church; if you didn’t get the sheet I put together suggesting ways to be praying for this body, let me know and I’ll run you off a copy. In particular, and especially this year, we as the Session need your prayers, as we seek to discern where God is leading us.
Barack Obama and the Senate Democrats: already on the rocks?
So suggests Jennifer Rubin, drawing on a piece in Politico on the Burris fiasco, and she identifies two main causes. One is the President-Elect’s maladroit handling of the situation; according to Politico, Democrats in the Senate are
complaining that he kept his distance from the Burris controversy then jumped in at the end to claim the mantle of peacemaker—much as he did in the flap over Sen. Joe Lieberman’s support of Republican John McCain’s presidential bid.
As Rubin points out, letting his party’s Senate caucus hang itself without intervening may work fine for a presidential candidate (especially when one’s opponent obligingly jumps into the situation), but it’s a really bad idea once you’re elected president. Not only will it be necessary for him “to resolve food fights before they spatter him,” but even if they don’t spatter him, the Senate still won’t respond well to being mishandled—particularly if that mishandling results in the Senate looking bad. If he’s unwilling to spend any of his political capital to help Senate Democrats out, they aren’t likely to play along when he wants them to compromise, or to stick their necks out for him.All of this, however, can be put down to inexperience, and that’s something that can be fixed; as long as President Obama proves a quick enough learner (and he’s certainly bright enough), this shouldn’t be a long-term handicap for his administration. The other problem Rubin identifies, however, is considerably more serious:
the Senate Democrats don’t much like or respect Reid. Republicans might cackle that the Democrats are just coming around to this realization. Nevertheless, there is a difference between a Senate leader of the opposite party, whose job it is to annoy, frustrate and criticize the White House, and a Senate leader of the same party, whose job it is to build coalitions to pass the President’s agenda and grease the skids for legislation. Reid seems spectacularly ill-suited to fill the latter role. But he’s the chosen leader, and unless more calamities befall the Senate, that’s the position in which Reid will remain. The Senate Democrats’ success (and many of their members’ re-election prospects) will depend as will, to a great extent, the Obama legislative agenda, on the extent of Reid’s finesse. Good luck, fellas.
I have been quite skeptical—some might say, extremely skeptical—about Barack Obama and the kind of president he will prove to be; but the upside to his sketchy record and short political career (which constitute one of my main reasons for skepticism) is that, combined with his impressive natural gifts, there is a substantial possibility that I’ve misread him, and that he’ll prove to be a significantly more effective president than I expected. (Based on his first round of appointments, he’s certainly bidding fair to be a different president than I expected.) The same, however, cannot be said of Harry Reid; he’s been doing this long enough that he’s not going to surprise anybody—what you see is what you get. There may not be any greater problem for the Democrats in 2009-10 than that.Update: David Broder sees some additional reasons for concern in this affair.
For Bill and Bird: another contender
that being a band, incidentally, that U2 admired a great deal, that influenced them and was influenced by them in turn: Big Country. I’ll grant U2 the lyrical edge (especially for their theological depth), but musically I’d take BC over either U2 or Rush.
Remembrance Day
Song of the South
The Storm
In a Big Country
Look Away
The Seer
Heart of the World
Beethoven, meet Beaker
Thanks to Bill for posting this:
About that honeymoon . . .
One of the things I heard a lot last year was that electing Barack Obama would make us more popular around the world. I expressed my skepticism about that, but it was the received wisdom in many quarters, buoyed by international polls. Now, before he’s even in power, the first returns are in, and I wouldn’t say they’re positive:
The international Left is making it clear: they won’t be happy just because we have a President who’s half Kenyan. If he doesn’t give them what they want (Israel on a platter, in this case), they’ll still hate him.
Rod Blagojevich: a template for future scandals?
Given Barack Obama’s thorough immersion in the Chicago machine, and the number of other simmering issues around Democratic politicians such as Bill Richardson and Charles Rangel, quite possibly. Of course, since these will be Democratic scandals, the lemming media (aka the Democratic Party PR department) won’t feel the need to shove them down our collective throat as they did with the likes of Mark Foley and Larry Craig; rather, they’ll try to keep these all as quiet as they can and play them down as much as possible. Democratic scandals are isolated incidents; only Republican scandals reveal a “worrisome pattern of conduct.” That’s the rule, from the LM’s point of view. Never mind that the whole Democratic approach to politics is to increase the power of government, which is only going to feed and broaden opportunities for political corruption. Now, I’m certainly not claiming any kind of moral superiority for the GOP here, merely trying to make the point that one can’t do the same for the Democrats either; if memory serves, the last four presidents have all come in promising a more ethical administration, and while I do think W.’s administration managed a better record that way than his predecessors, that’s not to say they did a good job. The truth is, whenever money and power are in play, some people are going to bend morally, including a few in truly alarming ways, and some will break off altogether. The content of your principles will always come in second to the content of your character; if your character is such that you violate your principles, it doesn’t really matter much in the end what those principles were. That said, I do think the Baseball Crank has a point worth considering about the logical consequences of a big-government philosophy:
Contemporary liberal/progressive ideology stresses, at every turn, that government officials should be given an ever-increasing share of public money to control and disperse, and an ever-increasing role in telling people and businesses how they can use the money and property they are left with. Government officials are, we are to believe, better able to make the ‘right’ decisions about who gets what and how businesses are permitted to operate. . . . In practice, no matter which system is used, it ends up being a short step from believing you have the right and wisdom to direct other people’s property to more deserving recipients and better uses to believing that you are one of the more deserving recipients, and a short trip from telling business how to do its business to telling it who to do business with based on the desire to reward yourself and your friends. The root of money in politics, after all, is politics in money.
In sum, the more you do to increase the amount of money government has to play with, and the degree of power it has over that money, the more you do to provide both opportunity and incentive for corruption. The apotheosis of this would be the political machine, the entrenched political system based on government money, such as the Democrats in Chicago or Louisiana, or the Republicans in Alaska. Given that our new president was the political creation of such a machine and has spent his entire political career closely associated with it (and has pulled key staffers from it, including his chief of staff), and given that he and the congressional majority are committed to increasing both the amount of money government has to play with and the degree of power it has over that money, it seems likely that whatever you think of Barack Obama’s personal integrity, there is good reason not to be sanguine about the integrity of his administration. I suspect that Rod Blagojevich and Bill Richardson will prove to be not isolated incidents, but harbingers of things to come.